“Progress and Challenges in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Decision Making” …

… was the title of one of the dozens of sessions at the week-long annual meeting of The American Geophysical Union (AGU), just ended. The conference drew some 15,000 geophysicists to San Francisco December 15 -19, 2008. While the programs were all designed as peer-to-peer presentations, several investigated how scientists are working to make their research better understood not only by policy- and lawmakers but also by the general public.

The "Bridging the Gap" topic drew so much interest from conference presenters that dual sessions were arranged (Session I and Session II).  Representative topics from Session II:

-On the use of Empirical Data to Downscale Non-scientific Scepticism About Results From Complex Physical Based Models 

-The Role and Responsibility of the Non-Governmental Organization in Bridging Science and Policy

-Mapping for Advocacy - Using Marine Geophysical Data to Establish the Limits of Extended Continental Shelves under the Convention on the Law of the Sea (yes, my poster, with geophysicist Bernie Coakley from the University of Alaska-Fairbanks).

Both Session I and Session II were organized under the rubric of Global Environmental Change. This category is a particularly important driver in improving the science-policy interface in the context of the Arctic. If members of the public in non-arctic regions do not understand how changes in the Arctic affect them, they will not see the need to support arctic research generally.

Another relevant program to science and policy making communication was the “Frontiers of Geophysics Lecture” featured Google's Michael Jones, who examined “the relationship among mechanisms of knowledge sharing, the pace of scientific advancement, and the degree of public understanding of new results.”     

For their part, international lawyers are also giving increased attention to the science-policy interface. During last week’s AGU meeting, an announcement crossed my e-desk from the European and American societies of international law announcing a “Research Forum: Changing Futures? Science and International Law”,  to be held in
Helsinki next October. A representative sampling of suggested topics include Data Protection and International Law, Climate Change and Global Environmental Protection, Global Health Issues, Intellectual Property Rights, and Developments in the Law of the Sea, including Maritime Delimitation. 

Almost all of these topics are regulated at least in part by one or more international treaties (as is, of course, the case with mapping the Extended Continental Shelf). If my time on the Healy taught me anything, it is that existing treaties will be more effectively enforced and new treaties will be better crafted when lawyers better understand the underlying science. Science in effect drives the compliance and enforcement mechanisms that our treaties (and domestic laws) establish. 

A closing note: Communication between science and decision-makers is a long-standing interest of President-Elect Obama’s choice to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Jane Lubchenco. Ten years ago Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program, whose purpose is to advance “environmental decision-making by providing academic scientists with the skills and connections needed to be effective leaders and communicators.”

Canada's Academic Commitment to the Arctic

Canadian-US relations in the Arctic are strong, their diverging views regarding the Northwest Passage and Beaufort Sea boundary issues are well-managed, and academic exchanges on arctic topics are thriving. Indeed, the health of those international exchanges contributes significantly to the fact that the first two assertions can be made so confidently. A remarkable conference on Arctic Change in Quebec City from December 9-12, 2008, attracted some 900 scientists, policy makers, students and community members to share their latest research and undertakings. Attendees were predominantly from Canada, but many other countries were well represented. The primary organizer was ArcticNet, self described as "a Network of Centres of Excellence that brings together scientists and managers in the natural, human health and social sciences with their partners in Inuit organizations, northern communities, federal and provincial agencies and the private sector to study the impacts of climate change in the coastal Canadian Arctic." (continued below)

The animated substantive discussions and collegial respect so evident in Quebec City confirm one basic tenet: Any commitment that arctic governments make to fostering academic exchange at this level will be repaid many times over in ideas and concrete steps to address the unprecedented change now facing the region. Initiatives such as University of the Arctic offer additional, multinational models for multiplying the effect of trans-boundary research collaboration.

The Arctic is much more a part of national identity in Canada than in the United States. Nonetheless, multiple efforts within the United States promote arctic research, including the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, a non-governmental organization whose work complements the activities of The U.S. Arctic Research Commission; the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (a partner of the Quebec City conference), the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee and the NSF Office of Polar Programs and the National Academies' Polar Research Board.

Arctic Mapping at the Arctic Change Conference
The Arctic Change program is available on the conference website where the presentations will also soon be accessible. With respect to Arctic mapping and sovereignty issues, three Arctic Change events were of particular note: Larry Mayer's Plenary Address "Mapping the High Arctic: The Challenges and the Joys" and two panels, details of which are available on the Conference Program page:

• T34. Seafloor Mapping of the Arctic Ocean, Continental Shelves and Margins - Moderator Steve Blasco

• T12. The Law and Politics of Canadian Jurisdiction on the Arctic Ocean Seabed - Moderator Suzanne Lalonde

Welcome VPR Listeners

Thank you for your interest, and thanks to Vermont Public Radio and Mitch Wertlieb for linking you to my arctic blog. Although my time on the USCG icebreaker Healy is past, I will continue to post items relevant to ongoing policy and environmental developments in the Arctic;

but today I simply want to share some images from the trip. You may have heard me describe being in a "constant state of awe" on board. I hope that including some of my photographs in this entry will help to convey some of the splendor of the Arctic Ocean in summer.

For the three weeks we were at sea, it was almost constantly light as the sun never dipped fully below the horizon at most of the latitudes we were traveling through (getting well north of the 83rd parallel, though still short of the North Pole).

Imagine that you are not only always surrounded in light: you

are also floating some 3,000

meters - almost two miles! - above the ocean

floor, suspended over the inky indigo darkest blue of frigid arctic waters.

Imagine, too, that the ship is moving at a slow, steady speed (5 to 7 knots, or m.p.h.) through an ever-changing ice scape: sometimes tightly compacted with tall pressure ridges, other times with broad "leads" of open water:

Sometimes the ice itself or the melt pools on top of it assume a stunning azure, because much of the salt has leached out of this older ice:

Arctic ice infuses the concept of "white" with an entirely new meaning, given its endless shades of frost, grey, snow, and shadow; in mist and in fog and in brilliant sun; in not-quite-twilight, not-quite-dawn shades of rose, pewter, lilac... words eventually fail and you are left to simply soak in the vastness and beauty of the place.

Thanks once again for your interest. I hope you will stay tuned, read a few of my earlier entries to learn more about the mapping trip (see above, right) and that you will send me your questions and comments, either by posting below or by writing to me at bbaker@vermontlaw.edu.

#19 Conflict in the Arctic? The Tenacity of Media Spin

Just hours after I returned, a week ago, from my trip to the Arctic Ocean, I was dismayed to open the New York Times and find on its editorial page hyperbole verging on that which other 

media sources use to perpetuate the myth of "fierce disputes over territory and natural resources" in the Arctic. ("Arctic in Retreat", September 8, 2008). As the sea-ice retreats, states are turning not to arms but to existing legal structures and a tradition of scientific and

 and 

diplomatic cooperation to address common problems as well as dis- agreements.

A helicopter from the Canadian icebreaker, the Louis Saint Laurent, on a friendly visit

to the USCGC Healy

Immediately after transporting our mapping crew to shore last week, The Healy turned right around and began breaking ice for a Canadian icebreaker, the Louis Saint Laurent. This month-long joint mission to map parts of the Arctic Ocean floor is scientific and diplomatic cooperation at its international best. Like the Russian mapping the NYT mentions in its editorial, the US and Canada are gathering data in preparation not for conflict but for submission in a staid and stable legal process designed to provide certainty for all states involved.  The Law of the Sea Convention establishes this orderly mechanism of rigorous scientific vetting for states seeking to extend their authority over larger portions of the continental shelf.  The United States is the only Arctic state not party to the Convention but is nonetheless mapping for its potential shelf extension in keeping with procedures agreed by the international community.

The territorial disputes referenced in the NYT editorial are also resolved not by conflict
but by diplomacy. In June 1990 Russia (then still the Soviet Union) and the United States signed a brilliantly conceived single maritime boundary treaty that precludes the need to renegotiate the boundary once the extended continental shelf limits are determined. Canada’s recent announcement that it plans to extend enforcement jurisdiction from 100 to 200 miles beyond its shores should raise concern.  But it must also be viewed within the context of the long-standing friendship and shared interests of the United States and Canada on such matters as environmental protection, trade (ca. $1.5 billion daily) and common security.   Their disagreement over the Northwest Passage has never flared out of control and continues to be the subject of diplomatic attention.

Other existing legal and diplomatic structures provide an imperfect but solid basis for Arctic states to resolve potential disagreements. The Arctic Council is a cooperative forum for states and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to address a range of environmental and economic problems in the region. The Ilulissat (Greenland) Declaration, signed in May 2008, confirms the will of the five coastal Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States – to strengthen existing cooperation based on mutual trust and transparency. Treaties in force in the Arctic cover issues ranging from polar bear protection to pollution by dumping from vessels to biological diversity. Activists and diplomats alike should be concerned and asking hard questions about whether these agreements will be sufficient, or sufficiently enforced,to protect the Arctic, but to pretend that it is a lawless region up for grabs ignores the facts.

Above: The USCG Cutter Healy and the Canadian icebreaker Louis St. Laurent
underway together in the Arctic Ocean earlier this week.

To be sure, the Arctic now faces enormous environmental and governmental challenges. Non-Arctic states are also legitimately concerned as to whether the Arctic countries will be good stewards of the Arctic’s immense resources. Having just spent three weeks surrounded by the unearthly beauty and light-filled vastness of the Arctic Ocean, I more than endorse the New York Times’ call for cooperation in face of the potential for expanded resource exploitation, environmental degradation and security risks as the ice melts. But to characterize the Arctic as a “scene of commercial and territorial conflict” overstates the case. Perversely, it also contributes rhetorically to escalating tensions rather than under-girding the very cooperation that the paper advocates.

#18 September in Barrow - Return to Land

The LOS mapping crew disembarked USCG Healy on 5 September after three weeks at sea, escaping the worst of quite a storm that was brewing to our north off of the Russian coastline. Just as at the start of the trip, we were transferred by helicopter between ship and shore to the North Slope Borough Search and Rescue hangar in Barrow, the northernmost town in the US.

Barrow, AK is home to over 4,000 people and to the BASC - the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium.   With funding from the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs, BASC encourages and provides logistical support for Arctic research.   Its research and education initiatives pertain to Alaska's North Slope, the Arctic Ocean off of the North Slope, and Chukotka, Russia.  BASC is the successor in a line of institutions that began with the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory founded by the Navy in 1947, although the US research presence in Barrow traces sporadically back to the late 19th century.

Above: accommodations the last night in Barrow: luxury quonset hut on the BASC campus

BASC shares it main building a few short miles out of town on one of Barrow's dirt roads, with the local community college, Sivunmun Ilisagvik Arctic College, and the Mayor's Workforce Development Programs.  Ilisagvik is a two year tribal college "dedicated to perpetuating and strengthening Inupiat (Eskimo) culture, language, values and traditions.

The Arctic Summer was nearing its end as we returned to Barrow.  The tundra was turning to shades of reds and heather, a fall foliage beautiful in its own spare way.

#17 Dredging

Dredging!

September 3, 2008

An ocean mapping cruise is mostly about forward motion, trying to map as much territory, around the clock, as time allows. But other projects on board require us to stop from time to time (see, e.g. my entry #12 about the on-ice deployment of a NOAA/National Ice Center buoy). We have spent the last few days of the trip dredging at various sites to get a sense of what kinds of rocks are in different parts of the ocean. Getting the rocks is really only the beginning. From here they will be taken back to various campuses for analysis under the careful eye of a few geologists. Their analyses will contribute to the larger picture of what the Arctic Ocean floor is made of and how the ocean basin was formed.

Kelley Brumley (in pink hard-hat), our fantastic on-board tectonic geology scholar, led the rock end of the dredging effort with the help of Healy's Marine Science Technicians (see entry #9), Dale Chayes of Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Alex Andronikov (blue hard-hat) a volcanics expert from the University of Michigan Department of Geology. The actual dredging requires much planning and logistical coordination:
- Identifying the right dredge sites based on sparse mapping of the region,
- Finding the actual site and hoping there is not too much ice over it,
- Breaking any ice that is there,
- Conducting a drift test which helps with the next step,
- Keeping the boat stationary over the site for the two to three hours it can take to run a dredge two to three thousand meters down and haul it back up,
- Properly preparing and securing the dredge, which weighs 700 pounds empty! (it is not uncommon to lose them if they snag on some unseen formation hundreds or thousands of meters below).
- Briefing all participants, and ensuring their safety (keeping non-essential personnel clear of the fantail for the hour or two that the dredge needs to pulls up its load under very high tension).
- Once the dredge is hauled back up, weigh the contents, which can be over a thousand pounds! Lots of mud involved ---
- Hope for more rocks than mud,
- Once the crane empties the dredge onto the fantail, start hosing down the pile and sorting the rocks. This involves lots of water in cold temperatures, bending, kneeling, lifting bucket after bucket of rocks, drying them and transporting them into the lab for cataloging…

The picture below shows the safety attire (and proves that I am earning my keep – that’s me under the yellow hard hat, happy as a geologist in mud).

#16 Polar Bear II

Bear Number Two, photos by Adriane Colburn

September 2, 2008

Number of Polar Bears seen on the Healy cruise in August 2007 = 21
Number of Polar Bears seen on the Healy cruise in August 2008 = 4

This comparison is nothing more than an anecdote, an observation, but still sits somewhat uncomfortably. [If you’d like more on polar bears, please see my earlier entry # 8 on the topic.] We also saw very few seals this year. Think food chain: where there are seals -- and ice -- there are bears. Fewer seals, fewer bears.

Three of the bears spotted this cruise were seen in the wee hours, one of those for only a fleeting moment; the fourth, spotted on September 2, was seen at a time when most of the crew was awake. The bear also remained in sight for quite a while.

It was fascinating to watch the bear sniffing for prey, poking its nose into the water, testing different routes between the ice islands and open water it encountered. I’ll be bringing back a short film of the bear produced by the NOAA videographer traveling with us, David Sillicorn. For now, here are two still shots of this gorgeous animal. The picture in my mind's eye is all of us standing on the bow in collective awe, really, watching the bear wend its way across the ice scape.

#15 Congestion in the Arctic?

Members of the Healy science crew watch the Louis St.-Laurent's helicopter, which travels with the Louis,

do a fly-by, far, far from land

September 1, 2008

Apologies for the delays in posting, due to technical difficulties on this end.

What are all these ships doing here? or "Three’s a real crowd"

My last entry was Xinhua’s coverage of the Xuelong, or Snow Dragon, a Chinese research vessel. We saw her both on radar and with the naked eye (she was about 15 miles away). Folks who have sailed the Arctic Ocean many times said how exceptionally rare it is to see another vessel up here. Larry Mayer, our chief scientist, said he has never seen another vessel, other than for a pre-planned rendezvous. Many others echoed the same experience; that it felt very, very strange to see another ship in the Arctic.

So you can imagine the dismay on board at seeing two more vessels (on radar) in two more days. The first was the Louis Saint Laurent, the Canadian icebreaker that will join the Healy for the next leg of its journey. That was less of a surprise, although this was not a planned meeting. The Healy will break ice for the Louis, a smaller Canadian icebreaker, which will tow seismic mapping equipment. The picture shows their ship’s helicopter coming to check us out --- a little show of Canadian muscle, perhaps? Another fog-bow showed up about the same time they did.

The third foreign vessel spotted this week was the Mirai, a Japanese research ship that is "ice-strengthened", but not an icebreaker. The only sign we had of it, some 30 miles away, was its trail on our radar mapping system (all ships must broadcast their unique AIS code – automated identification signal).

This hard evidence of increased interest in the Arctic from non-Arctic states reflects the fact that, as it melts, the Arctic Ocean is opening up to more traffic of all kinds. The Arctic Council will soon issue the final version of its interim 2006 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment to provide some sense of the number of vessels plying the Arctic. The final report is expected in the fall of 2008. Until the interim report, nobody has really had a firm grasp on the number of non-military vessels in the Arctic Ocean.

#14 China in the Arctic

11:40, August 03, 2008
Icebreaker Xuelong sails into Arctic

The icebreaker Xuelong, the carrier for China's third scientific Arctic expedition, sailed into the Arctic early on Saturday, and the scientists aboard will get down to their Arctic research soon.

The Xuelong, or "Snow Dragon," crossed into the Arctic region at 01:58 local time (1358 GMT Friday) with some 110 scientists on board. The Arctic region covers an area of 21 million square kilometers the North Pole.

Members of China's third scientific Arctic expedition celebrate their entrance into the Arctic region August 2, 2008. (Xinhua)

The team will conduct comprehensive observations and research on the the Chukchi Sea, the submarine plateau of the Chukchi Sea and the Canada Basin, and is scheduled to return to the Port of Shanghai, China, on Sep. 25.

Zhang Haisheng, chief scientist of the team, said that as the Arctic has a notable influence on the climate in China, the current expedition will focus its research on the Arctic climate change's impact on climate change in China, as well as the unique biological and genes resources, and Arctic geology and geophysics.

The icebreaker set off on July 11 from Shanghai and reached the Arctic Circle after a three-week journey through the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea and the Bering strait.

Source: Xinhua
Copyright by People's Daily Online, All Rights Reserved

#13 Ice III

Satellite image concentration of sea ice on Canadian Archipelago (right side, purple = thicker ice)
Ice – III
Melting and Moving Ice
2008-08-30The few media reports that filter their way through our limited internet access this far north show that experts are expecting new lows in arctic ice yet again this summer. Traveling with an ice scientist on board the Healy allows us to understand better what we are seeing first-hand as we pass through what is clearly a melting and shifting ice scape. Dr. Pablo Clemente-Colon, originally from Puerto Rico, is the lead scientist at the National Ice Center, which is part of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
A few statistics from Pablo help set the scene for what we are seeing: a mix of differently aged ice and a disappearance of the thickest, oldest multi-year arctic ice. As more multi-year ice melts each summer, it is harder for it to recover in winter. The thicker, older ice is replaced with younger, thinner ice, which also melts more quickly in the summer. Both kinds of melting open up more water and create more melt pools on what ice remains: both kinds of water are darker than snow and ice. With increasingly less (white) ice to reflect solar energy and increasingly more (dark) water to absorb it, the feedback loop is exacerbated and melting is accelerated, in what is known as the albedo effect.

Slide courtesy of Dr. Pablo Clemente-Colón

Summer is always a melting season for arctic ice, but over the 28 years since 1979, when satellite measurements first began, the drop in summer ice coverage of the Arctic has been considerable. Pablo provided the first two figures below; the NSIDC* provided the last one, showing the following declines in summer ice coverage in the Arctic:

September 1979: 14.16 million km2
September 2007: 3.98 million km2
August 2008*: 3.43 million km2

*From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is a separate entity from the NIC.
With some two weeks still to go in the Arctic summer the last figure above is likely to drop even more. And this is despite the fact that the past winter (2008-08) was colder than the year before and allowed the ice to recover some over the winter months.

The preceding information about the extent of ice cover is gathered primarily by satellite. Ice thickness is another important indicator, measured by buoys that are positioned in the ice and drift with it throughout the various arctic seasons. Buoy data over the last twenty years shows a decrease in thickness of the ice (see figure above).

Based on these figures and other observations, ice experts seem to agree that the actual rate of ice decrease is faster than in previous years. There is simply not much 10+ year ice now left. The thickest ice we have seen appears to be more along the lines of 4 to 5 year ice; only when we stopped at the ice island to deploy the buoy did we come close to seeing thicknesses indicating an age of 8 to 10 years old multi-year ice. As Pablo says, the "precipitous decrease in older ice 1988-1990" is simply continuing. Once that older ice disappears, either by melting or by being moved out of the Arctic by wind and ocean currents, it is much harder to keep the overall ice pack intact.

The image below shows the difference between 1987 and 2007 in the amount of multi-year ice (in white). Steve Howard, the high school science teacher who is traveling with us, describes the movement of ice in the arctic as follows. Since I shared his misconception about how ice moves in the Arctic, I pick up his narrative there:

"One major misconception that I had was that the thickest part of the Arctic Ice Cap was centered on the North Pole. I see now that the ice coverage up here is very dynamic, with wind and water currents pushing the floes around the Arctic Ocean basin like flakes in a cereal bowl. Currently, the thickest ice is not centered on the Pole, but closer to the northern coast of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. [As Pablo indicates]… . the Arctic sea ice is retreating faster than previous climate change models had predicted, a consequence of an overall warming of the Arctic at twice the global rate in combination with other atmospheric and oceanic processes…. Anomalous weather patterns, perhaps associated with o ther global changes, have helped blow a lot of this ice out of the Arctic Basin and into the Atlantic Ocean, where it drifts southward and eventually melts." To read more of Steve’s chronicles of day-to-day activities and life on board the Healy, visit his blog.

#12 Ice II - Buoy reprise

Ice II - Buoy reprise
Friday, 2008-08-29
Well, we finally reached a spot on the old multi-year ice floe that allowed one of the weather buoys to be deployed. If you look at the pictures of the ice above, you will see in part why an ice liberty was decided against (an ice liberty being the chance for all crew to get out onto the ice). There were too many melt pools and structural uncertainties. What you can see in the view from the deck is that the ice was so thick we could not break our way any further into it to get to a more stable section. This is the thickest and oldest multi-year ice we have seen the entire trip, and the type of ice that is so rapidly disappearing from the Arctic (see my Ice – III blog entry #13 for more details).

Landing folks on the ice is quite an effort. The Coast Guard crew uses a crane to lift the open steel box (the "man cage") from deck to ice, carrying one or two people each trip. The first two on ice are the rescue swimmer (yellow suit) and armed polar bear watch. (Polar bears can come out of nowhere at about 30 mph). Both men check the ice for the best place for the others to work. Once the buoy and three other men were on the ice they were able to drill a hole and set up the buoy pretty quickly. The whole operation took about an hour (not including the travel time into the ice floe).

I promised a short bit about Walt Lincoln and Peter Legnos, the business partners who designed and built the buoys. They are engineers, seamen and adventurers, now both based in Connecticut. Walt’s quiet intelligence and vision reflect his MIT PhD and his time as a submariner and Navy captain. Peter started building and sailing boats when he was just a high school kid; decades later he still hasn’t stopped experimenting in the vessels and buoys he designs. They both saw the need for an arctic buoy that could operate in water or in ice.
Until recently, most of the US National Ice Center buoys were built for ice covered polar waters and designed to be deployed on multi-year ice. As the multi-year ice melts, those buoys are sinking and researchers need to find new ways to fill in data gathering blanks. This is where the seasonal buoys that Walt and Peter are developing come in. A NOAA Small Business Innovative Research Grant funds production of their buoys, which are being deployed as part of the larger International Arctic Buoy Program (IABP). The IABP is not a classic international organization, but acts as a forum for sharing of buoy information amongst the arctic states, and other interested states and entities (e.g. Japan, the World Meteorological Organization). All of the members coordinate to provide as much buoy coverage as possible for monitoring ice, weather and other data in the Arctic Ocean. The IABP is yet another example of a functioning mechanism between arctic states that does not need the formal structural requirements of international organizations yet manages to provide an effective forum for the states that know most about a particular arctic issue to address it first hand.

#11 Ice I - A Primer

"Nilas" ice formed overnight; in winter its layers accumulate to form new ice

Grease ice from above surrounded by thicker new ice with fresh snowfall on it.

Thursday, 2008-08-28


All trip long we’ve been wondering whether we would ever find a floe of multi-year ice large enough and thick enough for an “ice liberty” – when the crew can get out onto the ice for a few hours. We think we may have found one, measuring almost 17 miles in length by some eight miles wide. As I write (0820), it is about five miles to port. Depending on how much backing and ramming we have to do to get through the ice we are now in, it could take anywhere from an hour to three hours to go that five miles.

Even if we do not take an ice liberty, we will stop at the floe to deploy some prototype buoys designed for monitoring changing arctic weather conditions over the course of a year. Because there will be less and less ice in the arctic each summer, these buoys are designed to work both in ice and in open water, and can be deployed by air, at sea or on ice. We will plant one on the ice (it has a self-heating drill to settle itself into the ice) and launch one in open water. For more detail on these buoys, see my entry #12 on Walt Lincoln and Peter Legnos, the men who designed and built them.

Above: One of the weather buoys, waiting for enough ice on which to deploy it.

To understand more about sea ice, it helps to make a very basic distinction between new, first-year and multi-year (or old) sea ice.
NOAA and the National Ice Center include several more stages, ranging from New, to Nilas (less than 4 inches thick) to Young, to First Year (thin, medium and thick) to Multi-year ice. For more complete definitions see their “Observer’s Guide to Sea Ice”; if you’d like a copy, email to: library@hazmat.noaa.gov.New ice is “Ice in the initial stages of ice formation.” This includes Grease ice: “A thin, soapy-looking surface layer of coagulated [new] ice. Since summer is ending and winter is on its way, we have seen quite a bit of new ice forming, especially in the colder hours of the night watch.

Multi-year or old ice is “Sea ice 3 m (10 feet) or more thick that has survived at least one melting season, characterized by undulating, weathered ridges and a well-defined melt water drainage pattern.” (see below)
Most of the arctic multi-year ice this summer appears to be drifting toward the Canadian archipelago and building up there. Here, farther north and west, the mix of open water and multi-year ice has ranged from no coverage near Barrow to full coverage. But most days we travel in and out of open drift (4/ to 6/10ths coverage), close pack (7/ to 8/10ths) and very close to full pack (yep, you guessed it, 9/10ths to 100% cover). Much of the multi-year ice we’ve seen is not very thick; maybe two to three meters. Every so often we have had to break through a major pressure ridge, but our captain says none of these compares to the massive ridges he saw in the Arctic Ocean when he was on the Polar Sea, another USCG icebreaker some 20 years ago.
It’s now 0922 and we are closing in on the ice floe, but it will be a few hours until anyone can get out on it. Since this is the Arctic after all, I will write more on ice in my next entries. Until then, the last shot, to the right, shows deteriorating multi-year ice, with close pack ice in the background.

#10 Pictures at the Commission

Images courtesy of CCOM/UNH

How the mapping data is used: Pictures at the Commission?
2008-08-28

So, what will be done with the pictures produced from the sonar mapping described in the last blog entry? The geologists and hydrographers on board are already poring over the first processed results of the data, and excited at some of the formations they reveal: possible rifting here, a better picture of known but poorly mapped features there, weird formations that cannot yet be identified: the discoveries and the questions they raise seem endless. The second image above is of the Healy Seamount, a major discovery on the 2003 Healy cruise in the Arctic Ocean. The image is created by taking the kind of colorful swath pictured at the end of yesterday’s blog, interpreting the pings into three-dimensional images of the structures on the ocean floor, and combining it with other information already known about the area from earlier data collection.

Being able to make such discoveries is a valuable side-benefit of the extended continental shelf mapping project, which has been funded by Congress through NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) since 2002. Larry Mayer, the cruise’s Chief Scientist, and his Center for Ocean and Coastal Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center at UNH, were approached to carry out the mapping with NOAA not only in the Arctic Ocean, but for all of the US coastal areas. Andy Armstrong of CCOM and NOAA is along on this and all of the Healy cruises as the Co-Chief Scientist. CCOM scientists will process the data further when they return to UNH, combining it with data from past years’ Healy mapping cruises to provide more information on where the outer reach of the US-Alaskan extended continental shelf might lie.

The extended continental shelf, or ECS, is that part of a country’s shelf that extends beyond the 200 nautical miles automatically accorded to every coastal state under the LOS Convention and accepted state practice.

Under article 77 of the Convention, the coastal state exercises "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources." Those natural resources include oil, of course. The Convention describes the natural resources over which the coastal state exercises those rights as: "mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil" and certain sedentary living organisms on or under the seabed.

Every coastal state has rights over its continental shelf whether or not it has joined the Law of the Sea Convention. Each coastal state also sets its own extended continental shelf limits. However, the assertion of those limits by a state that is not party to the LOS Convention is much more vulnerable to challenge than ECS limits that have been confirmed by the delineation process set out in the Convention. Over 150 states are party to the Convention; the US is the only arctic state that is not.

Article 76 of the LOS Convention lays out a process for delimiting the outer reaches of a state’s extended continental shelf. That process involves submitting ocean floor mapping and other data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). The CLCS is established by the Convention and comprises 21 experts in geology, geophysics and hydrography. States that follow the delimitation process have the certainty of a "final and binding" status for any limits it sets based on the Commission’s recommendations. But only States that are party to the LOS Convention have the clear right to submit data to the CLCS. So until the US ratifies the Convention, which – remarkably – is far from a foregone conclusion, it cannot obtain the greater certainty as to its shelf limits that comes from Commission review. For more information on the prospects and widespread support for US ratification of the LOS Convention, please see the links at the bottom of my blog page.

Whether or not the US is ever able to submit the data supporting its assertion of extended continental shelf limits to the Commission, the data CCOM is gathering on the Healy cruises will provide the scientific foundation for those limits. It will also provide a much more complete picture of the ocean floor than is now available and offer scientists rich material for further investigation.

#9 The Healy's Marine Science Technicians

The Healy’s Marine Science Technicians

2008-08-25


Coming off of watch this morning offered a good chance to talk with two of the three Marine Science Technicians on board, Rich Layman and Tom Kruger. The MSTs provide direct logistical, hands-on-the-deck support to the science crew for such projects as deploying and retrieving buoys, drilling for science core samples, and dredging for rock samples. They rotate two to a shift; the third MST is “Runamok Chuck” Bartlett.




This morning I finally watched Rich deploy one of the two daily XBTs (expendable bathymetric thermographs). The XBTs are generally scheduled for 0830 and 2030 but today the ice conditions were such that we grabbed the opportunity closer to 0800, since it looked like the large stretch of open water that was then open would be the only one available much of the morning. The XBTs are shot into the ocean to measure water temperature as against depth, an important input for calibrating the multi-beam sonar equipment. Temperature affects the density of water, which in turn affects sound speed. Since the multi-beam sonar measurements we are using for mapping rely on bouncing sound off of the ocean floor and back to the ship, knowing the density of the water through which the sound travels is essential to understanding the data correctly. The XBTs are little missile shaped devices about 10 inches long that carry a temperature sensor. The XBT is attached to a thin copper wire thousands of meters long and can be “shot” from a hand-held device. XBTs are launched into the water from the ship’s fantail and, once the wire spools out to the desired depth, readings are taken from the information that is sent back up the wire. Once this is done, the MST breaks the wire, letting loose the XBT.



Both Tom and Rich are new to the Healy and to the Arctic, having been here one and two years respectively. This is a product of the Coast Guard’s fairly strict rotation policy of moving personnel from one ship to another every two or three years, depending on their rank. Rich joined the Healy from his prior Coast Guard post at the National Response Center (NRC), a joint undertaking of the USCG, EPA, DOI and several other federal agencies to monitor hazardous materials spills and emissions. Tom’s last Coast Guard position was with the Coast Guard’s regional reporting station in Louisiana. Given the extensive oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Tom gained considerable experience in related response measures. It is striking how seriously both take the Coast Guard’s responsibility to patrol illegal emissions of hazmats in national waters. They know their CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) well, which is where they find the listings of current “reportable amounts” of hazardous materials.

Perhaps most unexpected were their observations as to how the reporting requirements serve more than the legislatively intended function of generating self-reports from companies and individuals who cause the spills. A reportable spill can range from one drop – if it creates a “sheen” on the water – to tens of thousands of gallons. The additional effect of self-reporting also encourages companies to report incidents whose provenance is unclear. If a company spots a spill of unknown origin, it is most interested in establishing that it has not caused the spill. This leads in turn to pretty effective protocols for checking and ensuring that their own facilities are not “leaking”. We talked a bit as well about their work in earlier positions requiring the boarding of foreign vessels in US waters to enforce international standards such as those set under SOLAS (an International Maritime Organization treaty on the Safety of Life at Sea).